Sunday, February 03, 2013

Csikszentmihalyi – don’t go with the ‘flow’!

Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi (pronounced chick-sent-me-high-ee), former Professor of Pyschology at
the University of Chicago , has contributed a theory that is oft quoted in learning
and hugely influential. His concept of ‘flow’
postulates mental states of optimal performance where we are ‘in the flow’. This, he thinks, applies
to many cognitive tasks such as sport, programming, writing and, importantly,
learning. He asks us to take the experience of flow into consideration when
designing and delivering formal and informal learning. But do his theories
really apply to learning?

Flow, in the zone, in the groove

Linked to creativity, happiness and satisfaction, he sees
‘flow’ as ‘being completely involved in
an activity for its own sake. The ego falls away. Time flies. Every action,
movement, and thought follows inevitably from the previous one, like playing
jazz. Your whole being is involved, and you're using your skills to the utmost.’
It is sometimes described as being in the ‘zone’ or ‘groove’.

But is there a problem with the word ‘flow’? At times, it seems
a little vague and used in several different ways – mental state, process,
actions. It is also difficult to relate the concept to hard, scientific
evidence and data. Indeed, much of his work draws from anecdote and unusual
cases.

Dubious data

Intimately linked to positive psychology, he has explored
many aspects of flow in practice. For example, his examination of 90 creative
people across a wide range of disciplines was explored in in 'Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of
Discovery and Invention' (HarperCollins, 1996). He has also applied his ideas
to business and sport. Indeed, his more recent work, with Howard Gardner, has
been in in the application of these ideas to work and business.

Csikszentmihalyi gathered huge amounts of data on mental
states through spontaneous surveys. A randomly beeping watch triggers people
into reporting how they feel, data that fuelled his research into optimal
experiences and ultimately to his core concept ‘flow’. This approach worries
many professional psychologists as it assumes the reliable self-reporting and
in terms of retention and learning, doesn’t give us much useful data, as
self-testimony is notoriously unreliable in learning.

Flow and learning

In his essay ‘Thoughts
About Education’ he points to the huge gap in education between the ‘dismal reality and expectations’. He
sees most research as being misplaced, lacking a focus on motivation. The main
problem is not that people can’t learn, it’s that they don’t want to. His focus
on intrinsic motivation searches for ways to make learning more enjoyable and
satisfying. So far so good but what do his theories really add?

Features of his ‘flow’ theory do correspond to good
pedagogy:

1. Challenging but not too challenging
tasks. Similar to
Vygotsky’s ‘Zone of Optimal Proximity’ this sounds good. But the problem is how
this is achieved, as most learning experiences force the flow of the teacher
not the learner. Interestingly, online learning, especially when personalised
and adaptive, is much more aligned with his theory.

2. Concentration. True but we’ve long known that
psychological attention is a necessary condition for learning, so nothing
really new here.

3. Clear goals. True but nothing new,

4. Immediate feedback. Now this is where it gets interesting,
as detailed feedback may interrupt flow. Realtime feedback is fine in flight
simulators and immersive games but useful feedback in learning involves
stopping the ‘flow’ to make the learner reflect and adjust their thinking. In
fact, saying in the ‘flow’ may not result in the deeper processing in memory
needed for retention, it may result in surface learning, the appearance of
learning, with low retention.

5. Deep, effortless involvement. Another interesting feature that
suggests abandoning classroom and lecture based models, where the activity is
rarely deep, effortless and involved. But really only a symptom.

6. Sense of control over actions. Really a symptom.

7. Concern for self disappears. Really a symptom.

8. Sense of time is altered. Really a symptom.

There are two main conclusions to draw from this. First is
that his first four main, practical recommendations (challenge, attention,
feedback & goals) are really only bits of existing theory from the
psychology of learning, useful but not novel. So the idea of ‘flow’ seems like
an unnecessary abstraction, especially if some types of feedback are more episodic
and break the spell. Second, his last four criteria are really just symptoms of
attentive states.

Flow, teachers and media

Csikszentmihalyi doe see his ‘flow’ theory being at odds
with most teaching in classrooms and lectures. It implies the removal, as far
as possible, of the teacher from the equation as this is the learner being
forced to adapt to the flow of the teacher or lecturer, not their own attentive
learning.. One could argue that it strongly suggests online learning,
especially sophisticated task-based online situations such as simulations and
games.

To be fair, he also attacks the illusion of learning through
television. Its long-form formats produce not ‘flow’ but a suspension of
disbelief that results in little learning or retention. The flow of learning is
not the flow of movies and TV.

Group learning disrupts flow

At the other end of the spectrum he also notes that a major
constraint on people enjoying what they are doing is being conscious of a fear
of how they appear to others and what these others might think. This mitigates
against theory which pushes group learning or contexts in which the learner may
be exposed to the judgements of others, an interesting, important but rarely
aired argument.

Is ‘Flow’ always good?

One could argue that ‘flow’ is merely a synonym for
’psychological attention’ and that this is an umbrella term for a cluster of
different attentive states. In fact, as he recognises, the flow one experiences
in watching TV or a movie (largely suspension of disbelief) may result in shallow
processing and poor memory and retention, precisely because one is in flow of a
medium that takes you forward at its pace.

Deeper processing in learning seems to require interruption,
activity and reflection. These are very different types of conscious states and
just because we’re absorbed, doesn’t mean that there’s one definitive state,
called ‘flow. Spaced practice theory also suggests that flow needs to be
disrupted and made episodic if retention is to be increased.

So although, at first, flow theory seems to identify
something that is intuitively right, it may do no more than over-simplify different
cognitive states and fly in the face of many solid pieces of learning theory.
Flow may, when unpacked sometimes be the enemy not the friend of learning.

Conclusion

Csikszentmihalyi is one of the few psychologists who have a
concrete motivational theory, based on large samples of empirical data, that
points towards states of mind that optimise learning. These seem to be far more
individualistic and solipsistic than most contemporary theory. However, he may
have pushed his theory too far in ignoring the problems it poses for actual
learning, in terms of feedback and spaced practice. Although it may, on first
sight, have a certain allure, when unpacked it has it weaknesses and
contradictions. Like the word ‘happiness’, ‘flow’ is a simple abstraction, not
a watertight theory.

2 Comments:

Thoughtful piece as usual Donald. The number of people who actually cite sources must be down to a handful now. I was just wondering about your thoughts on how the idea of flow applies when viewed from the designer's view. Do any of his ideas seem useful in getting instructional design away from a viewpoint, that in my opinion, honors the content much more than the learner?

Thanks Mark. There are, I think, several consequences for designers:1. To move towards 'adaptive' online learning where more sophisticated algorithms and data are used to keep learners in the 'flow'. Most online learning seems like a chore because it's not your flow but the linear flow of the designer.2. It pushes people towards more 'challenge' in online learning. Less condescending, easy to answer MCQs.3. More simulations, which have more sophisticated challenges and feedback.4. Higher quality feedback and not 'scoring'.Just some initial thoughts.